Parker v. Kowalsky & Hirschhorn, P.A. - 124 Md. App. 447, 722 A.2d 441 (1999)

Rule:

Conversion is a distinct act of ownership or dominion exerted by a person over the personal property of another which either denies the other's rights or is inconsistent with it. The gist of a conversion is not the acquisition of the property by the wrongdoer, but the wrongful deprivation of a person of property to the possession of which he is entitled. Accordingly, a conversion occurs at such time as a person is deprived of property which he is entitled to possess.

Facts:

Attorney, a former employee in appellant's law firm, removed files from appellant's office when she terminated her employment. Attorney later obtained employment with appellee. Attorney continued working with some of the clients and appellant retained a portion of the fees attorney received from work completed on the files. Appellant filed a single-count complaint alleging conversion against only appellee. Appellant neither served the complaint on appellee nor informed appellee of the suit's existence. The circuit court dismissed appellee’s suit for conversion of legal fees. Appellant sought review of the decision. 

Issue:

Did the circuit court err in dismissing appellee’s suit for conversion of legal fees? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant’s complaint. Appellant's failure to meet the required time constraints and his inclusion of irrelevant material led the court to not consider the extraneous materials. While appellant stated a viable cause of action in conversion against attorney, the allegation did not demonstrate that appellant had a possessory interest in the fees that were received by appellee. The only actual possession or right to immediate possession to which appellant was entitled involved the files themselves. Given the revocable nature of the attorney-client relationship, appellant did not retained a possessory interest in the legal fees.